Re: issues with the AGPL
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:46:24AM -0400, Greg Harris wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:27:42 +0100
> Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> wrote:
>
> > Hello Debian legal,
>
> The AGPL has been the topic of multiple extended and heated discussions
> during my short time subscribed to this list. If you are interested in
> actual comments, you may want to review the previous discussions. If
> you are interested in renewed (and to my mind unproductive) bouts of
> rehashing these questions, no doubt you will get that result as well.
Good.
> From a purely personal perspective, I just don't see the problem.
> Authors who choose to license their work under the AGPL have a desire
> not to see derivative works locked up inside a walled garden under some
> pretense that those derivative works are not "distributed" when they
> are offered for public user interaction. There is nothing in that goal
> that is in any way incompatible with the goals of the GPL. (As you
> quote: "Rules that require release of source code to the users for
> versions that you put into public use are also acceptable.")
But "public use" is not defined.
> With respect to your identified problems, Alice would have been under
> an obligation to provide source code for her derived version to Bill.
> When Bill distributes (and that, really, is what we are talking about
> here) a modified derivative version to public users, Bill undertakes an
> obligation to make available the source code to those users. I do not
> see anywhere a basis to invent any ongoing obligation for Alice.
I cannot see how you can reach that conclusion. To quote the text:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify
the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users
interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your
version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the
Corresponding Source of your version
Alice modified the program, not Bill, so the word "you" can only mean Alice.
This paragraph does not even mention the word "distribution".
> Similarly, if the AGPL does not specify that modified source code must
> be made available from the same or a different network, that
> emphatically is not a shortcoming. It can be either, or both, but not
> none.
>
> Your items (2) and (4) are, frankly, mystifying. If those are
> intended to represent actual concerns, you have not explained them
> in a way that I can understand. (Your fifth issue leads me to suspect
> that none of them are concrete problems. Does a mere recompiling alter
> the source code? How does this raise any issue concerning the AGPL that
> does not also effect other licenses?)
All other free software license I know may restrict redistribution of modified
or unmodified version but never plain modification.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: